Maryland Assault Weapons Ban Round Up
Maryland wants its own in case the federal one sunsets. More here.
The Governor opposes it. Good for him.
The anti-gun folks have boners for it.
8 Responses to “Maryland Assault Weapons Ban Round Up”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
February 4th, 2004 at 11:45 am
From the anti-gunners:
“At least one in five police officers slain in the line of duty was killed by an assault weapon, according to the most recent data available from the FBI.”
What data would that be? I downloaded the FBI’s report on Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm), which contains data on what types of weapons were used to kill LEOs. However, this type data is very broad: Handgun, rifle, shotgun, knife, bomb, other. Nowhere do the phrases “assault weapon,” “assault rifle,” or “military” appear in the report.
Furthermore, while in some years the number of officers killed by a “rifle” does indeed exceed 20% (e.g., 1999 it was 11/41), the 10-year average is somewhat less than 20%. This makes the “at least one in five” claim about “assault weapons” rather dubious.
Meanwhile, nearly 70% of the officers killed over the past 10 years were killed with handguns. Of course, it goes without saying that these people want handguns banned as well.
It’s interesting to note that the 10-year average for officers slain by their own is right at 1-in-20. Also, according to the National Safety Council (http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm), in Y2K, 270 people were killed in “Legal intervention involving firearm discharge.”
Where are the calls to keep the police from carrying weapons?
February 4th, 2004 at 11:49 am
Correction: the 10-year-average of officers killed with their own weapons is about 7%, so it’s more than 1-in-20. Call it 1-in-14.
February 4th, 2004 at 7:31 pm
Here’s my take on the FBI report:
http://geekwitha45.blogspot.com/2003_11_09_geekwitha45_archive.html#106878695741898171
[quote]
LEO’s, who’s duty calls for them to chase down and duke it out with the scum of the earth, and thus find themselvs pretty consistently in proxminity to danger, are slain by criminals at a rate of 60 or so a year.
Law enforcement officers are armed, and armored.
Civilians, who generally mind their own business in “safe” places like banks, grocery stores, schools, public parks, and their own homes, are slain by criminals at a rate of (what’s the accepted figure again?) 28,000 a year.
Civilians are on the whole NOT armed*, and rarely armored.
[/quote]
February 5th, 2004 at 12:13 am
The National Safety Council data (see URL in original post; I assume the numbers are reasonable) for Y2K lists 16,765 due to “Assault,” including 10,800 firearms deaths.
Preaching to the choir here, I know, but the gun bigots never mention how this stacks up against, say, “Transport Accidents” which killed 46,749 people, and “Falls,” which kill 13,322.
But hey, if it saves one life…and besides, nobody NEEDS an assault weapon…
February 5th, 2004 at 4:06 pm
Anthony:
Perhaps the comparison isn’t made because it isn’t a valid one. Comparing accidental deaths to intentional ones is apples:oranges. And in another thread here (I’m sure Uncle can link it) I’ve already detailed my objection to BS use of statistics.
And yes, I’ll agree that ban supporters just throwing out the 10,800 firearms deaths by itself doesn’t say much. If they can demonstrate that a ban would significantly impact that number, then they’d have something — it’s how we got seat belt requirements, among other things. But just throwing out the raw numbers doesn’t do much.
February 5th, 2004 at 7:50 pm
You have a point, but isn’t it telling that Bullet Hoses Designed To Kill As Many People As Possible can’t even come close to the number of people killed just by accident?
At any rate, you’re right: it’s pointless to bandy numbers about. The right to keep and bear arms isn’t conditional on how many people are killed by murderers with guns.
February 6th, 2004 at 12:29 pm
Anthony:
isn’t it telling that Bullet Hoses Designed To Kill As Many People As Possible can’t even come close to the number of people killed just by accident?
Not really. A big part of it has to do with how frequently people come into direct contact with said Bullet Hoses versus how frequently they come into contact with, say, cars. An example I like to give is that they always say that you’re much more likely to be killed in a car crash than in a plane crash, but conveniently ignore the corollary fact that you’re much more likely to be in a car than you are to be in a plane.
A more telling safety statistic to me is assuming a (car/plane) crash, which are you more likely to survive?
February 6th, 2004 at 3:47 pm
I meant to put a smiley in there.